Case Scenario:
Mr. A, a national of State X which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its first Protocol, was arrested by the police in October 2005 in the context of terrorist bombings that took place in the capital of this state and have left many people killed or seriously wounded. Mr. A was beaten up, denied food and water for 2 days, before he was brought to a military base situated outside the country. He was kept there for 2 years without having the opportunity to establish contact to the outside world, not being allowed to write or read, including reading the holy book of his religion that he had carried with him. Suddenly he became released without any explanation and compensation. All the proceedings he has instituted against State X were to no avail.
Mr. A doesn't accept this result. He wishes to complain about the violations of his human rights, particularly his human dignity, to the Human Rights Committee and receive adequate compensation.
Question 1: Given the facts presented above, please discuss whether and which Covenant rights have been violated and if Mr. A may claim compensation.
State X denies any violation of its legal obligations. It argues that it had denounced the Covenant and the first Optional Protocol with effect of January 31, 2010, thus terminating the competence of the Human Rights Committee to examine its compliance with the Covenant. Additionally, State X maintains that it had never incorporated the Covenant rights in its domestic legal order, thus having never accepted the applicability of the ICCPR rights in a specific case.
Question 2: What impact does these arguments have on the admissibility and/or the merits of Mr. A's communication?
State X argues that it had made use of the possibility offered by article 4 ICCPR. Because of the sequence of most disastrous terrorist acts during the year 2005 it had officially proclaimed a state of public emergency in June 2005 for three years derogating from all rights covered by the Covenant and had duly informed the other States parties through the intermediary of the United Nations Secretary-General.
Question 3: Discuss whether this argument may change the result you have found in responding to question 1.
State Y is pondering over an accession to the Covenant, because its willing to accept its substantive provisions. However, State Y dislikes to become monitored by the Human Rights Committee whose interpretation of the rights guaranteed by the Covenant is regarded to be too progressive. Y therefore asks for advice whether it would be possible to exclude the Committee's competences provided for by the covenant by formulating a reservation to this effect upon accession.
Question 4: Please discuss the issue.
Question 5: What would you propose in order to make the monitoring procedure ( ART. 40 ICCPR) more effective?
The response addresses the queries posted in 5700 to 6000 words with references.